BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'

Subject: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 11:07 AM

Science marches on

" The newspaper said a study has shown that near-death experiences, "such as seeing life flash before one's eyes" or "intense feelings of joy and peace", may be linked to levels of carbon dioxide (CO2)."



(yes, I see it said "may be linked"... still)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: bobad
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 11:14 AM

That was posted here three days ago.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: SINSULL
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 11:15 AM

Scientists have been saying for years that near death experiences are related to changes in the brain when it is deprived of oxygen.
Come on, Bill. You can do better than that.
LOL

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 11:23 AM

Also, from the link: "It is not possible to know at what time in relation to the near-death experience itself the measurements were taken (the study cannot prove causation)."

Poor Bill! I personally would welcome any scientific explanation and analysis of the near-death experience, but in my view, any explanation would not negate the experience itself.

Just as placebo-generated responses are well-documented phenomena, its occurrence does not invalidate any medicine's efficacy. It only means, in my opinion, that we still don't know squat (awful phrase!) about how the body, mind and spirit interact. Placebos may make it possible in some cases for the body to heal itself, perhaps through mind and spirit.

So, perhaps, high levels of CO2 make it possible to access the mind/spirit?

On the other hand, even though this study was peer-reviewed it may be perfectly meaningless: Out of 52 people studied, only 11 reported the experience. Eleven instances a summer do not make.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 11:26 AM

It would be interesting to see how the profiles of the eleven stood out from the other 44 in other ways.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 11:33 AM

Others insist its all in the ketamine.


The possibility that an out-of-body experience is a reflection of the actual facts of the matter--i.e. that the core "I" is non-material--are of course ludicrous, laughable, unsupportable, unthinkable, and ridiculous, much in the way that new "circulation" theory of Harvey's is. Everyone knows Galen's ancient model of humors and tides is the correct one. Otherwise why would so many physicians use leeches to draw off the bad humors? It's obvious!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 11:39 AM

Science sometimes does not include all the variables, I think.

I have freauently read things to the effect that delusional thinking after loss often includes reported instances of seeing or hearing or 'feeling' the presence of the recently deceased loved one.

Just maybe it is not delusional at all?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 12:27 PM

hmmm.. being very busy, I didn't see the other post 3 days ago.

Yes, I realize that it is just one report and one theory. My only real point is that there are viable scientific explanations for various 'unusual' experiences.

And Ebbie... re: "any explanation would not negate the experience itself."...of course- an experience IS an experience, and whatever is at the root of it, it may have a profound effect on one's life. It is just not necessary to assume that the experience is 'supernatural','metaphysical' or 'spiritual' in order for the experience itself to be relevant.
I have had dreams which affected me strongly and made me contemplate aspects of my life...valuable insights in some cases. I am simply able to understand that bio-feedback and other physical causes are often simpler explanations than more...ummm.. 'ephemeral' ones.

"Science sometimes does not include all the variables, I think.

Well, science, by its very rules, is limited in what it can even allow AS variables. It is constantly re-evaluating data and looking at theories and claims, but when certain claims are, by definition, not something that can BE tested and evaluated except by comparing stories about experiences, there is an impasse reached.
It becomes, automatically, subjective, as to one's accepting something other than causes which CAN be tested.
Belief is called 'belief' for a reason...because it is different from a firm concept of 'knowing'. There is no doubt that one has an experience, nor about what it means subjectively, and nothing *I* or science can say can make light of what it means to the one having the experience.....but assertions about META-physical causation, religious & otherwise, must remain listed under 'beliefs'.

As science progresses, we are learning more & more about things that used to be just speculation and wonder. I find it more 'comforting' to finally get glimmers of real answers rather than struggling to reconcile 'hard science' with all the 'maybe' stories I have heard all my life. This universe is full of wonder and surprises... I am in awe daily.... and if someday 'other' realms can be explained in ways that do not require a suspension of what I understand as 'data', I will be in awe of that. *smile*
Until then, I am a voice for caution.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 12:33 PM

I thought motorcycles and bungee jumping caused near-death experiences.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 12:34 PM

"As science progresses, we are learning more & more about things that used to be just speculation and wonder. I find it more 'comforting' to finally get glimmers of real answers rather than struggling to reconcile 'hard science' with all the 'maybe' stories I have heard all my life. This universe is full of wonder and surprises... I am in awe daily.... and if someday 'other' realms can be explained in ways that do not require a suspension of what I understand as 'data', I will be in awe of that. *smile* Until then, I am a voice for caution."

Love that paragraph, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 12:37 PM

What medical science needs is a more reliable and powerful self-administered placebo!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 01:00 PM

...not something that can BE tested and evaluated except by comparing stories about experiences, there is an impasse reached.

This is arrant nonsense, Bill. It is true of the physical sciences by nature of their framework. The notion that you would HAVE to use physical science methods to test psychological or spiritual phenomena is absurd. A far better approach would be to examine changes in subjective states reported. There is no impasse at all if you approach the problem intelligently to deal with the great plasticity of subjective views. Even though this (and other factors) interject a lot more variables which cannot be eliminated, a preponderance of evidence can be abstracted and conditional conclusions and hypotheses can be drawn. The notion that it should be rigorously controlled to the same degree molecules are is silly. It would only appeal if you were trying to prejudice the whole experiment by embedding your assumptions about the material roots of consciousness. And as any scientist knows, embedding your desired outcomes into your experiments is a no-no.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 02:04 PM

Most 'near death experiences' are anecdotal. Rather difficult to apply any 'hard' science (whatever that is).

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 04:13 PM

To coin a phrase, Amos... "Arrant nonsense is as arrant nonsense does."

And I will guarantee you that *I* am not "...embedding (my) desired outcomes into (my) experiments... ". I fervently wish some of what you believe were true.

You argue that "A far better approach would be to examine changes in subjective states reported."

I contend that all you get then are subjective references and a linguistic correlation of 'presumed' similarities to others' subjective reports. (Sort of like various folks 'reporting' that God spoke to them and 'called' them to do things.) Perhaps God does occasionally require someone to take vengence on His enemies. I sure can't 'prove' it isn't so.....but you & I both know it's well to doubt it.

What you have Amos, is a system similar to Hume's, where he was rigorously consistent in his reasoning.... once you accept his basic premises.( a sort of solipsism) But Hume once noted in a footnote that although he was convinced of his logic, he couldn't live according to it daily, since he HAD to treat stuff around him as objective.

There was a faith healer of Deal,
Who said, "Although pain isn't real,
When I sit on a pin
And it punctures my skin,
I dislike what I fancy I feel".

Stretching the metaphor, perhaps...but I think (to coin another phrase', it is 'arrant sense'. ☺
prove'

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Paul Burke
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 04:23 PM

Must be a commercial product in this. Religious experience available to all out of a gas cylinder! Go as near to heaven as you dare, with perhaps a biofeedback monitor to pull you from the brink and stop you actually going to stay there. I wonder if we'll get people addicted to joy and peace, mugging old ladies for their next shot of paradise?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: gnu
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 04:27 PM

I witnessed a near death experience today. A young lass in an SUV was on the phone and neglected to see the large elderly gent with a cane coming out of the grocery store. She got stopped about a foot from knocking him on the ground. When he raised the cane as if he was gonna hit the hood of the yuppiemobile, I thought, I wish he was nearer to her and could whack her in the head.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 07:55 PM

Bill, there's a difference being scientific and being bull-headed. If, as most spiritually inclined people seem to believe, there is a non-material essential viewpoint from which all the more solid aspects of thought are viewed, weighed, etc. then it makes complete sense not to try and weigh the sucker on the scales you use for brass and gold. You have to use scientific principles in addressing a non-material proposition. If you can't think of a way to do that, you're up the creek as far as evaluating this body of data. To insist on purely physical protocols does indeed embed your intended outcome into the experimental structure in exactly the same way that a right-wing survey discovers that "Americans" have a peculiarly right-wing bent.

One sure way to get the answers you expect is to ask the wrong questions.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 08:38 PM

"If, as most spiritually inclined people seem to believe..."

But that very situation is what I just addressed...it is **belief**.

No law against 'belief', but not everyone has those experiences you cherish...and not everyone who does assumes they are METAphysical. Those who do are making claims which, presumably, they want others to know about.....but they offer little more than hearsay and claims of circumstantial 'evidence'.

I am really puzzled at the tone of your replies..."bullheaded"? "arrant nonsense"? My concerns are real, thought out, legitimate issues. I did not invent the ideas that I discuss....and many folks here are a lot more strident than *I* on stuff that feels like superstition and wishful thinking... I don't totally deny things...I only doubt and suggest less 'certainty' when positing things based on unproven assumptions.

Sometimes, expressing reservations about OOB and reincarnation..etc., gets me grumpier responses than those which totally denigrate religion. Most curious.

YOU might be right... but it ain't certain...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 10:33 PM

"Must be a commercial product in this. Religious experience available to all out of a gas cylinder!"

Well there was the widespread use of many substances in Victorian Times, including Laughing Gas....

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 11:05 PM

Well, Bill, there's a closed loop involved here. As such, it makes a perfect chain of perfectly defensible barriers against the possibility of that which you say you entertain as possible. At least so it seems. For example, "beliefs" are kind of tainted data because they are so unrepeatable, plastic, and subjective. And therefore, they must be ruled out. Furthermore, since beliefs tend to fuel the imagination, any OOB experiences, since they aren't physical or easily reproducible, must be imaginary as well. And so on around the chain.

I have endeavoured many times to point out the gaps in this chain mail. But no go, there; the viewpoint-as-object defense is immutable.

The claim of arrant nonsense is not meant antagonistically, and I apologize for venting. You know I loves ya, man. But the continuous reduction to materialism is, in my view, not genuine philosophy, since it sweeps aside so much in our philosophic heritage--BErgson and Plato, for two--by subordinating them to the machinations of the driest Prussian version of anti-semantic method.

That's my opinion.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 11:19 PM

Materialism, and Metaphysics - 2 separate non overlapping categories.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 10:30 AM

In an interesting essay Stanley Fish examines the proposition that what reason lacks, above all, is self-awareness; and the reasons why religion falls short in achieving a rapprochement with reason, despite the promising possibilities.

Awareness of awareness is the essence of the difference between brain and being, quoth I.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 01:02 PM

Well, "Awareness of awareness" is certainly both the blessing and curse of this strange 'humanness' we are afflicted with. It allows us to both explore 'being' from the inside...whatever we conceive 'inside' to consist of, and to rationalize about it. There's (usually) no direct penalty for stupid reasoning, as there is for bad hearing or eyesight.

Phenomenology tries to highlight the difficulty of 'standing to the side and evaluating our own thought processes and motives'. The very process of trying IS the explanation, and we are always reduced to secondary methods, usually involving the linguistic categories I go one about, in order to even have a discussion about it.

But... as to your example of the "chain of barriers" :, ""beliefs" are kind of tainted data because they are so unrepeatable, plastic, and subjective. And therefore, they must be ruled out".

   There is a disconnect there....yes, beliefs ARE "kind of tainted", but if they are at all logically possible, I do not assert they must be ruled out. All I really argue for is restraint in automatically ruling them IN- because they ARE in that funny category of requiring belief. Ghosts are 'different' from NFL linebackers.....you KNOW not to get in the way of the latter, but several people can stand in the same room and differ about seeing wispy 'presences'.

I know a woman who 'sometimes' talks to 'little blue angels' that sit on her shoulder and give her messages from....ummm 'departed souls', etc....but she admits that this is a **model** to focus her thoughts and feelings and that she is probably doing both sides of the conversation...it 'feels' very real, and is 'almost' like talking to someone 'on the other side'. She acts as if it were true in order to process the feelings, and does not like to dilute the experience by admitting to me OR herself very often that it IS just a model.
Now...*I* don't require/use such a system, but I can sort of see its usefulness...and *shrug*...people are different.
But...you see the fine distinction between using the model and asserting it as fact that she has communication with
'other realms'?


(and poor Bergson & Plato?? Why not Ryle, Strawson, Wittgenstein, Aristotle and Democritus being marginalized by popularized ephemeral writers who create entire systems out of whole-cloth in order to make a buck? ☺)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 02:21 PM

Anyone can create a whole family of blue angels, green elephants, transcendental gremlins or anything else in the rich and plastic fields of the mind, Bill. The content is not the substantial issue. The substantial issue is that these things are brought into existence and may be vanished therefrom by the owner, under the right conditions. No-one is saying you should create a science to measure blue angels or pink demons--they are just variable mock-ups from individual to individual. This is no reason to say that the existence of said owner and his relationship to those creations, and to the brain, should not be examined, especially since there is such an interesting per centage of anecdotal reports of the owner being able to let go of the brain and still perceive. THAT's the real issue.

Of course, a real hard-core jerk might argue that if it cannot be demonstrated in all human beings, then it can't be true for any of them, completely ignoring the entire spectrum of awarenesses and capabilities that is manifested across the species.

Anyway, I don't mean to be scrapping with you, pard.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 02:57 PM

I have no idea what happened that the last post came to you blank :-(

I had spent about ten minutes writing a post with several links but do not now have the time to do it all again.

Google "Susan Blackmore + NDE" and you will see some of the research she has done from personal experience. Hope it helps though it will be harder work now without all the links I had posted.

Intellectually amd skeptical. Emotionally I am spiritual. Not many phenomena have me sitting on fences but this one does. My bottom is full of splinters over this subject! I tend toward the brain chemistray school BUT I have seen enough odd happenings in the emergency room, in operating thetares and on the wards to have felt sometimes there was another 'force' at play.

Sorry to pour more fuel on the fire, albeit in a non-inflammatory way, but it's a good topic needing more research. Personally I hope none of get to experience the phenomena in the near future!

mp

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 04:05 PM

"The substantial issue is that these things are brought into existence .... by the owner, "

Ok... no scrapping, just a comparison of prejudices views. *grin*... and mine is that there is an equivocation on the word 'existence' there. Alice & Humpty-Dumpty could go on for hours about it.

mauvepink ... indeed, your splinters are earned righteously! Very stong 'experiences' will certainly make one say "hmmmmmm", and it is obviously very personal which way you lean on that fence.
   I just accept the strong feelings and shrug that they are 'probably' originating within my own brain/mind...whatever. It doesn't change the 'meaning' *I* give the experience, but it might to one who wants very much to apply it to wider issues.

Don't fret about "fuel on the fire"... Amos & I and a few others have been at this for years online... when we meet, we seldom mention it...we just visit and make music.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 04:16 PM

Bill... yes, yes. I quite agree :-)

Often it is best to leave some things to those more able to fond the answers. What often is more important, on a personal level, is to actaully be able to experience something and make of if what *we* want to make of it and believe in. Even science, without such experiences/phenomena to study, would be a far poorer place and less of a challenge to those who love the experiences of query.

We all bring with us and contribure something to life's mosaic. The CAUSE is sometimes not so as important as the effect. I can never explain why I like a certain particular song/tune - while others may hate it - but that makes the experience no less valid. I am sure the actual reasons are simple, when compared to NDE, but all it confirms is that I am a sentient being thankful for such experiences and queries in life :-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 05:25 PM

Bill, your death will provide the definitive answers that you seem to be seeking. You will have absolute confirmation. It'll either "all be over" then...or it won't. ;-) And if it won't "all be over" then, you probably won't have any way of telling those who have outlived you about what they're missing! ;-) That could be pretty frustrating, eh?

Until then, however, it's all just idle speculation, so why not just put up with the fact that you don't know for sure?

I don't see that you really have any choice in the matter, because there IS no way you can prove whether or not there's an afterlife or a "God" or anything else like that...since if there was, it would very likely not be observable as any kind of phenomena in this space-time continuum, therefore it would not be susceptible to scientific testing at all.

And, yes, you and Amos and I have been discussing that for years.    Why do you discuss it so much, Bill?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Paul Burke
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 05:48 PM

Bill, your death will provide the definitive answers that you seem to be seeking. You will have absolute confirmation.

Only if you are right in your speculative view of reality. The evidence is that you're not.

because there IS no way you can prove whether or not there's an afterlife or a "God"

A god, with or without capital, could "prove" it in a moment. However, gods are looking remarkably like neoTemplars just now. Of course, the Second Coming could prove me wrong by the time you read this. But given the track record, don't hold your breath. And as for "prooof", too shay.

Why do you discuss it so much, Bill?
That, from whom?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 08:23 PM

" Why do you discuss it so much, Bill?

Oh boy...a direct query! Brace yourself....☺

Because, besides it just being 'interesting' to compare notes on stuff, my major interest (an 'almost' career as a philosopher) is promoting reasoned, rational, logical thinking, and I see and hear (everyday..not just here) a lot of flawed assertions and reasoning in defending them.
Now, it IS possible to make a 'true' statement using bad logic and flawed reasoning....just as it is possible to zoom thru a stop sign at 90 MPH.... but in neither case is it a good idea to depend on the results. I have complained for years that IF I am right about whatever happens after death, I don't get to say "I told you so".
As to "so why not just put up with the fact that you don't know for sure?"... I DO put up with it! What I don't put up with is others telling me they DO know. This is important (to me) for a couple of reasons.
1) People who assure me that they DO know certain basically unknowable things also act, vote and judge differently from those who are, like me, skeptics. This appears most seriously in stuff like attempts to introduce religious principles into political decisions and basing their decisions on emotional 'slogans' rather than evaluating actual conditions...but they also often conduct 'human interactions' using paths of reasoning that tend to lead to conflicts.
2)There is a 'tendency' these days in education to concentrate more on 'adjustment' rather than learning. I see language skills, math, history...etc., being watered down to facilitate 'getting along', and it is reflected in societal conflicts being more common and serious.
It is MY contention that IF people learned basic techniques of language and reason ...starting early... they would find more common ground. (And yes....there **IS** such a thing as 'correct' reasoning, just as there are correct math answers. Correct reasoning does not automatically solve everything, but it avoids many really bad ideas and decisions.
(I have posted a dozen times, and may many times more, the important principle " From false premises, anything follows!". The import of that is: Many people have little idea what their odd beliefs and assertions have as implied premises. They start from superstition and slogans that they like, then resort to startlingly flawed rationalizations to defend them!)

Thus, most of my arguments here are in the line of "you don't have a really good basis for that assertion, and I wish you'd either modify it or provide a disclaimer like 'this is my working hypothesis'"...etc.

I have also said many times that I don't need or expect anyone to alter any basic belief in order to discuss it...but IF they toss it out as revealed truth, they may get grumpy ol' me stating the other side of the issue.....just because I want to leave the best alternative view possible for fence-sitters....and Max says this forum will be here a LONG time.. *grin*

So...aren't you glad you asked?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 09:06 PM

What speculative view of reality, Paul? You may have mistaken me for somebody else that annoys you...or some straw man you yearn to joust with. I'm saying that we don't know what happens after death (aside from the decay and dissolution of the body). None of us knows. I've no idea if anything like "God" exists or not. I've no idea if an afterlife exists or what it would be like if it did, although I've heard a variety of interesting theories about it. All I am absolutely sure about is that life itself exists, right now, and I am here at the moment in the midst of it, and I am therefore a part of life for the time being...maybe not later, though. I'll have to wait and see about that.

Bill - Cool. ;-) I understand your reasons perfectly. It is evident that your main concerns are with the search for truth and with various people (in the American electorate?) who think they "know" some great truth, yet have no evidence or rational thought (reason) to base their certainty on. I'm not one of them, because I don't think I know. The only things I think I DO know are all kinds of ordinary things I have much evidence for (like the existence of Dachshunds, for example...or the fact that water is a liquid...)...plus a very few other things I've encountered in a very direct way, in which case I had some kind of experiential evidence at that moment all right, but it was not evidence that I could capture, put in a container, and present later to anyone else. Thus it is only what is termed anecdotal evidence.

I don't expect anecdotal evidence to convince anyone of anything, but it might interest someone. Then again it might not. Either way is fine. If it actually annoys them, though...??? Well, that would tell me more about their personal hangups than it would about my experiential anecdote. (and I'm not implying that you are one of those people who would be annoyed by any of my anecdote(s)).

I have never encountered a "God", and I really have no opinion at all about whether such an entity exists. I would be tremendously surprised, though...even astounded...if a God existed that even remotely resembled the weird stuff about God in the Bible. That doesn't make any sense to me at all, and I see no reason to adopt a set of bizarre, barbaric, patriarchal beliefs propounded by a dour, fanatical, brutal bunch of old desert tribesmen from thousands of years ago who took for granted things like stoning people to death and committing genocide on their neighbours, and who treated their women like cattle...and then claimed to be "God's Chosen". Uh-uh. Not my cup of tea. If I saw people like that coming over the hill toward my town intent on conquest and conversion, I would man the ramparts right quick and ready the arrows, spears, flaming pitch, and whatever else was ready to hand and prepare to send THEM to their "maker".

Bill, my view of revealed truth is probably about the same as your own.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 09:11 PM

Ahem...I should probably add, for the sake of nitpickers who read my last post, that water is not just seen in the form of a liquid. It can also take the form of a solid (ice)...or a gas (water vapor)...depending on what temperature it is exposed to.

Yes, we all know that!

But I still thought I'd better say it just to save some smartass here the trouble of pointing it out to me. ;-)

I know that no infinitesimal jot or tittle goes unnoticed here, after all. This is Mudcat Cafe.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 09:39 PM

Bill:

Your assertion about what is or is not knowable is, um, interesting, to say the least. Do you have a theory or definition that divides the two?

I would certainly agree that in normal human operation one thing that is not knowable is the thoughts and pictures and whatever that another has in his mind but chooses to withhold. But I don't think that is absolute.

Are there things you feel are absolutely unknowable? How can you tell?

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Janie
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 10:19 PM

Interesting research. I'll be interested to read about larger studies when they occur.

Bill, my understanding of your position over the years I have been reading the many interesting threads and debates is clearly summarized by your statement above "...I have also said many times that I don't need or expect anyone to alter any basic belief in order to discuss it...but IF they toss it out as revealed truth...."

I agree that it is very valuable for each of us to distinguish between what we empirically know, (or given whatever the current state of science and factual knowledge happens to be) can know, and what we believe, and therefore treat, or act upon it as if it were fact. Being aware that something we adhere to is a belief is insightful and self aware, in my very humble opinion. It does not necessarily mean we should not have beliefs or operationalize our beliefs. It does free one to exam the efficacy of beliefs, choose beliefs that that on aware and responsible examination work for us as individuals and that balance what appears to be in the best interests of the self vs. the larger whole. When one mistakes belief for fact, one paints oneself into a corner, and often paints others into corners as well.

Amos and LH, I often come away from reading your exchanges with Bill with a sense that I understand what he is expressing very differently from either of you. Not defending or speaking for you, Bill, just thinking and pondering the different way I interpret what you write from my understanding of how Amos and Little Hawk interpret what you write. My understanding, in all instances, is interpretative, and may be incorrect.

I definitely have beliefs that I treat as fact. Recognizing them as belief rather than fact (I try to stay away from "truth" in these types of discussions,) does not inherently invalidate or devalue them. (I am also absolutely sure that I have have beliefs that I mistake for fact.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 10:34 PM

Ah, sweet Janie, oil on troubled waters!

One thing that is interesting to me is is that one way of assuring oneself of certainty is to run a physical universe and test a belief or assumption or assumed datum and find it good or bad. Gravity, for example, almost always checks out normally, and it does so for everyone. Not only that, but standard measures will find it accelerating masses at 9.8 m/sec^2 'most everywhere at sea level on this planet, plus or minus a point or two. That makes it a robust conviction, no? Anyone can see it!!

That makes the embrace of that datum no less a belief--simply one that has been tested in a larger matrix of beliefs and found to align and has also found agreement. Try disagreeing with that feature of reality and you fall hard, unless you have become very very enlightened indeed.

But this frame of achieving certainty is not, I believe, the only one. People lear lessons all the time about how to manage things, expect outcomes and find them to occur, in many situations that are far too complex to be tested the way physics is. They abstract probabilities and learn degrees of certainty from their adventures and their successes or mistakes.

BIll is completely right to be skeptical about various assertions in the general class of mystical propositions. The intertwining of the seventeen and eleven goddesses of the Himalyan Bamboo Temple of Clear Skies is likely to be a pretty localized phenomenon, a sort of placebo effect of the spirit. Rituals are usually similarly arbitrary and unfounded.

The question though is whether the baby and the bathwater are being thrown out together, and if so how these may be differentiated.

I look forward to Bill's answer to my last question, though. :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Janie
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 11:19 PM

I have muddied the waters by writing about fact and empiricality rather than logic and logical thinking. The distinction between "revealed truth" and "working hypothesis" that Bill made and repeatedly emphasizes in his posts over time is what is most salient to me.

As an aside, I am more of an intuitive thinker than a consciously logical thinker. (Always wrote the paper first, then went back and teased out the outline.) I speculate that one thing very logical thinkers and intuitive thinkers have in common is the notion of hypotheses. Logical thinkers begin with an hypothesis, and end with an hypothesis.    Intuitive thinkers end with a hypothesis, but have no clue where we started from our how we arrived at the end. Thus we ever question our conclusions:^)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 11:54 PM

(I've been trying to tell 'em that, Janie....*grin*...thanks)

well...it is too late in the evening..(remember, you have 3 hours on me.)... to wax eloquent on this:

"Are there things you feel are absolutely unknowable? How can you tell?"

Let me just say that I was once told "nothing is impossible".... and my reply was something like..."can you sharpen an axe on a peeled banana?" Wasn't gonna bet 100%, but 99.99+∞ is good odds.

There are a number of classes of things I 'suspect' are unknowable, and which are at present unknowable in the sense that we have no real way to even describe how we would go about 'knowing' them, and what form the debate about whether we DID know them would take. *(That is is why my assertion said "basically unknowable".)*

Think of this... the largest class of things in the universe (using the word 'things' in a general way) is facts...not data, as that implies 'collected & organized facts'. Every atom & collection of atoms in the universe could be described in part by its relation, in myriad ways, to every other atom. "There is a butterfly in Brazil that is between 150 and 155 million light years from **something** in galaxy NGC235...etc." Is this 'fact' knowable? Maybe. How about electrical synapses that we debate? They can be measured...sort of... but can we 'know' everything about all their patterns?
See why I assert that many things are unknowable? I can't deny the some god "created the Universe", but I have no idea how one would 'know' it were true....even if God came down (whatever that means) and told us in all human languages that he had, how would we 'know' that it wasn't mass hysteria or a cosmic joke?

The entire field of epistemology has grappled with this for centuries, and the best it can do is suggest what types of things ARE knowable. So far, I assume you, Amos, are with me...but when I list certain types of things as unknowable, I get constructs about "entire spectrum of awarenesses and capabilities that is manifested across the species.", and I assume you are exempting some prized concepts from the list of 'unknowable'.

(good thing I am too tired to wax MORE eloquently, huh?)

short answer...sure- some stuff just don't have no handle and cain't be dissected and explained.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: open mike
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 11:58 AM

out of body experience (OOBIE)
An Awesome Feeling...

everybody sing along...

the body dies but not the spirit..

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 11:58 AM

For those who see THEIR own faith and belief as fact I have no problem... for them. That is their own truth and belief system, no matter how much it differes from mine, so I think generally it is okay. My problem comes from those that insist everyone else is wrong because they have a different belief system.

It's odd that I am able to make this distinction on spiritual matters and yet, when it comes to such things as hate and bigotry I am set in stome mostly. I guess they too are only beliefs of sorts and yest I can never accept that as fair or sound (though I respect people's individual opions and their right to have them). Practicing that right is not always acceptable.

Of such philosophical meanderings my week has been full lol

You lot make me think far too much when I am too busy to take it all in ;-)

One thing is for sure. We will all find out eventually

mp

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 12:31 PM

"(Always wrote the paper first, then went back and teased out the outline.) "

After I went to bed, I was thinking about not only the issue, but the very process of expressing myself in this forum...

When *I* was in school, I wrote papers 'live'...that is, with a small typewriter on a board across my lap in a big armchair. I typed slowly and thought the same way. It might take me an hour to do a short sentence, and I hated the very idea of 'drafts'. I 'usually' composed the whole thing in my head as I went, even if I had notes to guide the basic organization.
It made me 'uneasy' to put down on paper ideas which were not carefully worded and organized....even when I knew I had the option of re-doing it before handing it in.
So...you see my dilemma here? A forum like this runs 'mostly' on fairly rapid give & take....quickish responses. If you take 2 days to compose a completely edited and qualified response, the others may have gone on to other things and decided you can't cope with their insights. ☺
   You can see all those parenthetical qualifications in my screeds as I try to avoid being misunderstood...and still it often doesn't come across. When Janie says, " I often come away from reading your exchanges with Bill with a sense that I understand what he is expressing very differently from either of you.", I have to wonder if *I* could have done a better job, or whether there's a real 'block' in 'some' readers (*grin*) who don't even want to consider certain paths (not agree, just see the point!)

I used to have a philosophy prof., who, in 2-3 hr. graduate seminars, would start stringing together LONG patterns of interconnected explanations, and then when the class was over, would look frustrated, because he was interrupted and hadn't FINISHED connecting all the threads of ideas. Boy, do I know how he felt!
All that being said, I am actually getting better..and this forum has been good for me to watch MYSELF as I work out what I DO think about some things. (It is often the case that only by explaining stuff to others can we clarify the details of our own ideas.)

Anyway... I wanted to get this 'into the record', just in case I get run over by a bus this afternoon. ;>(

We can go back to the topic at hand...if you wish... and I will 'try' to be a bit more concise and be sure I am not just issuing blanket denials of favorite beliefs...

(Durn it, Janie... you would have done well as a philosopher, even though you probably do more direct good where you are...thanks for chiming in.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 02:41 PM

Watch yourself? From where? As whom?


A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 04:44 PM

ah, Amos... I type several hundred words , and you lift 2 or 3 from context and ask about minutiae in the wording that, IF it was meant as a major point, would send us off on a tangent of YOUR choosing.

I ain't gonna bite.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 05:18 PM

Bill:

It's an important question whether you bite or not and very much relevant to the theme of self-awareness into which we ventured above.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 06:19 PM

It was only a simple remark in that post...do you really think that I could phrase any answer that would satisfy you? All I was doing was commenting using a short phrase that it's interesting to review my own posts and note how my opinions change...or don't change... as the years go by.

We can get into the phenomenology of self-reflective awareness some other time....if you REALLY want to. That, from my viewpoint, would involve the entire concept of the "eidetic reduction" in Husserl. Kind of a semester's study, if you have the time, books and a qualified guide. I tried it one time at the Univ. of Kansas in 1970....I'm kinda rusty on the details.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 06:56 PM

(I don't suppose Prof. Alphonso Verdu is still with us, but he was a delight, and maybe some of his papers are still available..) He used to 'demonstrate' with gestures and body language the difficulty of 'running around behind yourself' to objectively observe your own essential being...it was edifying... *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: open mike
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 11:20 PM

did anyone watch the video clip i posted?
any comments? it is a guy who (supposedly) had a near-death
or life-after-death experience....and found it to be joyful, & peaceful
i find myself singing this as i go along my day
\

dink-a-dink-a-dink...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 11:49 PM

Laurel...to be totally honest, I watched about 30 seconds of it and shrugged. Watching him clap & sing was not particularly interesting...to me.

Of course it's possible to have that near-death experience and upon revival, feel joyous..etc! His experience is HIS...it made HIM want to sing and make happy noises...but it tells ME nothing about exactly what happened. When death is near, and the brain 'almost' ceases to function..(gets less blood and oxygen...etc.) all sorts of things might happen. Memories and images can be accessed in strange patterns because of neuro-chemical changes, and when revived, it can be like a weird dream.....we just don't KNOW, and it's hard to get volunteers to 'almost' die to run experiments, so we take notes from that small group who survive....and I realize that some report OOB memories. Why? I don't know. I do know *I* have dreamed of being places I could NOT have been...like flying....and that too was happy and joyous! I wish I had more flying dreams.

If it happened to me, I'd like to think I'd cherish the joy..and maybe sing a bit, too....but not speculate about metaphysical causes.

Your mileage may vary.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 12:07 PM

Serendipity is with us....

Today, a link on refdesk.com took me to this page, which discusses 'Unsolved problems in physics', and lists some with *** 3 stars, as "*** Problems marked with three stars are considered by some physicists to be outside the purview of physics, more properly philosophical in nature".
That's kinda why I didn't answer, in this context, a question about 'how I watch myself'.

scroll down to 'other problems'. (and as you scroll past 'biological problems', note that biological issues related to ongoing discussions here have NOT (yet) been listed as 'unsolvable').

I have only been looking at that page for 10 minutes, and already my brain is tired. ☺

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 12:21 PM

Oddly enough none of the problems of awareness, viewpoint, OOB experience, or any of the other marginalia which accrues to this kind of discussion is even listed, aside from a couple of questions about synapses. You would think, at the very least, the question of the relationship between consciousness and physics would be listed as one of their largest unresolved issues.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 12:53 PM

I think some of those issues were 'implied' in the article, but I agree that they were not specified. I suppose they were trying to keep the topic close...hence the disclaimer that some things are considered " more properly philosophical in nature".... which I rather agree with.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 12:55 PM

I watched the video open mike, what a brilliant hoot.
Good on that man :)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 01:14 PM

That video is a gas indeed!! It has been predictably trivialized by some whose concern is more with form than substance. On the same page, BTW, there are half-a-dozen other people describing similar events. Of course they are all just sharing the same delusion, from the skeptics' point of view, but it's interesting how the individuals seem certain of their own experiences.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 01:27 PM

It is indeed 'interesting'....but whether it says something about 'modes of reality', or just human psychology, is what we wish were easier to answer.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 01:28 PM

"Of course they are all just sharing the same delusion, from the skeptics' point of view,"

Well, what's the diff. between any subjective experience that has a physiological corollary and commonly identifiable features - like say 'love' for example - and an OBE. It seems to me that it's simply a smaller amount of people that experience such a delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 02:35 PM

The fatal flaw, IMHO, lies in the unmentioned assumption that psychology is ultimately a subset of physics. Physics maintains this proposition by generally requiring physical standards of proof for any assertion about non-physical phenomena, a circular way of reasoning. This is partly compounded by those who confuse physics-centric protocols with scientific method, a much larger set. It is understandable, of course, that this has come about especially considering how many bad ideas we have outgrown using rigorous physics-centric testing. As I have said several times in these discussions it is a baby and bathwater proposition requiring a keen sense of discrimination.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 02:52 PM

"This is partly compounded by those who confuse physics-centric protocols with scientific method, a much larger set."

Yes, good point.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 02:53 PM

If we are gonna debate 'unmentioned assumptions', there are several in the idea that psychology is NOT a subset....which is why I think there are 'unanswerable questions'....and why I only 'doubt', and not deny.

Science, if done properly, does not explicitly make 'assumptions' of that nature. It is just that it has no other way of proceeding. Those who make claims, assertions and offer theories as to other bases for psychology are free to do so....but all they can do is vote to agree among themselves..... much as Christians do about the Trinity and resurrection.

As my daddy used to say, "It's the same, only different"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 11:10 PM

The BrainÕs Moral Molecule



Can a molecule make us moral? Paul Zak, a professor of economics at Claremont Graduate University, thinks so. A pioneer in the field of Òneuroeconomics,Ó Zak has overseen dozens of experiments involving oxytocin, a brain chemical released during sex, childbirth, and perhaps most activities that bond one human being to another. With the support of a three-year, $1.5 million grant from the John Templeton Foundation, Zak and the researchers at the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies (CNS) are investigating possible connections between oxytocin and virtuous behaviors like generosity, compassion, and resilience.

In one experiment, Zak found that subjects given oxytocin were 80% more generous, giving away real money, than were subjects on a placebo. In a study published last December in PLoS ONE, a peer-reviewed online science journal, Zak and his colleagues found that men who received doses of testosterone were stingier with their money. Why? Testosterone inhibits the action of oxytocin.

In other experiments, Zak has induced the brain to make oxytocin. He once showed test subjects a video about a terminally ill child. This sort of experience Òreliably induces peopleÕs brains to release oxytocin,Ó Zak reportsÑand in turn makes them more likely to share money with strangers. The video watchers did not simply want to contribute money to the sick child and his family; they also were more generous to a stranger with money they controlled. ÒThereÕs a large philosophical literature out there saying that weÕre moral beings because we have empathy,Ó Zak says. And we have found that Òempathy is connected to this chemical in our brain.Ó

Oxytocin

In another experiment, described recently in New Scientist, Zak and his colleagues tested the oxytocin levels of attendees at a wedding, which rose not just for the bride and groom but for family members as well. These results, says Zak, suggest that the public wedding ceremony evolved as a way to cement emotional bonds between couples and their communities in order to support successful reproduction.

There are 35 researchers working under Zak now, and their findings have found a wide audience. Their work has been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Washington Post, and Psychology Today, among many other publications. It has even been discussed on popular television shows like ÒBoston LegalÓ and ÒHouse, M.D.Ó

---

If ethics is a molecular expression, seems to me there is no hope for the species.

I could be wrong, though. Besides, it is possible oxytocin is just a channel-switcher, not an actual messenger.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:59 AM

This is too endearing:

'dead' boy's granny told him to "get back quickly"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 11:34 AM

Interesting point, and not uncommon in NDE annals. It is a question whether some kind of spiritual link occurs, or whether the individual is simply generating an advisory form to tell himself what he needs to hear. I know that sounds a bit odd but I believe peple do it all the time to step down their intuitive knowing into some language they can carry around.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 12:28 PM

"If ethics is a molecular expression, seems to me there is no hope for the species."

hmmm.. Í'm not sure exactly why you take such a pessimistic attitude toward such possibilities, especially since even that study indicates that oxytocin only 'tends' to influence 'some' behavior.
I read almost every month of some new discovery about DNA, or some chemical 'influence' on our tendencies & behavior. All it suggest to me is that evolution is a pretty complex process and that MANY factors, from oxytocin to testosterone, can **tend** us toward various patterns.
My master's thesis was to have been on a possible (philosophical) resolution of the question of whether we actually have 'free will' and how it could be explained.....but my conclusion was to have added that, no matter what it 'seemed' to be, we still must assume that we do have freedom of choice, and that awkward 'tendencies' can be dealt with.

What I 'feel' as a human still continues, no matter what I read about possible causal influences ON that feeling.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 10 - 01:38 PM

"People who are resuscitated from near death often report strange sensory phenomena, such as memories "flashing before their eyes." Now a rare assessment of brain activity just before death offers clues about why such experiences occur.

Anesthesiologist Lakhmir Chawla of George Washington University Medical Center and his colleagues recently published a retrospective analysis of brain activity in seven sedated, critically ill patients as they were removed from life support. Using EEG recordings of neural electrical activity, Chawla found a brief but significant spike at or near the time of death—despite a preceding loss of blood pressure and associated drop in brain activity.

"To our knowledge, this is the first time that this event has been shown to occur," Chawla explains. "It occurs at a very peculiar time point, when most people would think your brain would physiologically die [because of] an absence of blood flow."

The jolts lasted 30 to 180 seconds and displayed properties that are normally associated with consciousness, such as extremely fast electrical oscillations known as gamma waves. Soon after the activity abated, the patients were pronounced dead.

Chawla posits that the predeath spikes are most likely brief, "last hurrah" seizures originating in brain areas that were irritable from oxygen starvation. Living nerve cells constantly maintain an electrical charge gradient, similar to the difference in charge on the poles of a battery. Keeping up this polarity takes energy—in this case, energy created from oxygen. As blood flow slows and oxygen runs out, the cells can no longer maintain polarity and they fire, causing a cascade of activity that ripples through the brain. If these seizures were to occur in memory regions, they could ex­plain the vivid recollections often reported by people who are resuscitated from near death, Chawla says.

Further speculation is difficult because in these patients only the forebrain was monitored, notes Chawla, adding that the end of life is a poorly researched area. Next he and his colleagues would like to use more sophisticated imaging on a larger patient population to assess the entire brain in greater detail during near-death episodes."

(Scientific American)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Apr 10 - 04:45 PM

That article seems to be in line with other things I have read in the last few years, and what I personally have speculated as the type of explanation to be expected.
I am aware it doesn't, by itself, disprove 'other' areas of speculation, but I'm glad to see the research being done.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Amos
Date: 06 May 10 - 03:54 PM

An MD discusses Who You really are.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 03:35 PM

From a website generated by Ingo Swann, a researcher in SRI's psychic explorations from the 1970's:


On the second page of the NEWSLETTER exists the only report of the OOB experiments to be put in print. I will quote it in its entirety, since many of it's elements served in the future as a basis for the development of controlled remote viewing.

"NEW ASPR RESEARCH ON OUT-OF-THE-BODY EXPERIENCES: Karlis Osis, Ph.D. - Director of Research, ASPR.

"In the current research on out-of-body experiences (part of the program undertaken within the scope of the expected James Kidd legacy), our central hypothesis is that a human being has an ecsomatic aspect [i.e., outside of the body aspect] capable of operating independently of and away from the physical body.

"This part of the personality may also be conceived of as leaving the body at death and continuing to exist. We want to combine all our information from OOBE, apparition cases and deathbed-observations experiences, to see whether this ecsomatic-existence hypothesis is strengthened by our new data and its theoretical integration.

"If the hypothesis indeed proves justified (in opposition to the counter-hypothesis that OOB consists only of ESP coupled with fantasies of traveling), we expect to arrive at something like Myers' concept of a phantasmogenic center which operates outside the body.

"This concept assumes that the center of the projection is capable of perceiving from the point of view of the location in space to which it has projected itself - rather than from the subject's actual eye-level.

"We have now contacted over 100 individuals who responded to our appeals for participants. Out-of-town subjects were invited to project themselves to my office and try to identify target objects arranged on a coffee table there. Several people obtained very encouraging results.

"Our major subject to date has been Ingo Swann, with whom Janet Mitchell has conducted exploratory sessions.

"The general procedure has been as follows: Mr. Swann sits quietly in a semi-dark experimental room, attached to a polygraph (in the adjoining room) which records data concerning his physiological state, i.e., brain waves (EEG), heart rate, respiration, etc.

"The targets are on a shelf suspended two feet from the ceiling of the experimental room. This shelf is divided by a partition, on each side of which is a tray containing an arrangement of target objects, placed so as to look distinctively different as seen, say, from the south or from the north.

"We used objects having strong form and color, e.g., an umbrella, a black leather scissors-case, an apple. We asked Mr. Swann to tell us the position from which he saw the objects. He gave us verbal descriptions of the targets, as well as sketches [i.e., the picture drawings]. We developed psychological scales for rating the quality and clarity (as subjectively described) of his OOB vision, which varied from time to time.

"The results were evaluated by blind judging: that is, a psychologist was asked to match up Mr. Swann's responses without knowing which target they were meant for.

"She correctly matched all the 8 [formal] sessions (the likelihood of getting 8 out of 8 by chance is 1 in approximately 40,000.

"PERCEPTION: Ingo Swann sometimes (though not always) was able to give very clear identifications, e.g., the shape of a black leather case on a red background, or a blue cross.

"His OOB perception was organized in much the same way as if he were indeed looking at the stimulus shelf from the point where he felt he had projected his spiritual self.

"So OOB vision seems in one respect at least to be more like normal vision than does ESP. Whereas the ESP processes mostly elude conscious awareness, OOB vision appears to be directly observable [by the subject]. For instance Mr. Swann was keenly aware of the lighting conditions in the stimulus area [referring to the burnt out light bulb.]

"Does OOB vision follow the laws of OPTICS? On the high self we arranged stimulus material (for example a small letter 'd') inside a closed box with a small opening and a two-mirror system.

"We wanted to see whether in the OOB state Mr. Swann could see the target through the opening, as he would normally see it from that point (as reflected via the mirror), or whether he would see it directly by clairvoyance, without using the mirrored image.

"On the basis of our [successful] preliminary results, we are now developing sophisticated optical systems for testing the ecsomatic hypothesis of OOBE. Several physicists, engineers and psychologists are enthusiastically cooperating [names given at the end of this longish quote.]

"PHYSIOLOGY: What is happening to Ingo Swann's body at the times when he feels his spiritual self to be somewhere else? We have accumulated a considerable mass of physiological records, now in process of analysis.

"The autonomic nervous system responses seem quite within normal range, indicating that there is no danger to the organism during OOB states.

"Mr. Swann was also given biofeedback training for the slower brain-wave frequencies (alpha and theta). He identified these states and after a while could reproduce them at will.

"Until our analysis is complete, we can say nothing definite about brain-wave activity during the OOBE, but the voltage changes do appear to be important."

"Members who have generously donated their time and advice for the Out-of-Body Research:

"PHYSICISTS: Mr. L. F. Barcus, Mr. Thomas Etter, Mr. Robert J. Kleehammer, Mr. James Merewether.
"PSYCHOLOGISTS: Miss Bonnita Preskari, Dr. Carole K. Silfen.
"ENGINEERS: Mr. Kenneth Cohen, Mr. Martin Ruderfer, Mr. G.M. Smith."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: olddude
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 01:54 PM

But until someone can explain to me how I told the docs exactly what they said and did when I was "dead so to speak"   this doesn't answer anything ... I blew them all away .. including see the rusty bolt that held together my traction unit that was high above the bed .. now I was not exactly able to climb up a latter to see it and see it was missing one of the wing nuts ... nor was I in the other room with the nurses and could repeat to them what they were doing and saying since at that time I was in that room while I was "dead" .... CO2 would have to be pretty darn powerful stuff EH

Subject: RE: BS: 'Near Death? It's a Gas!'
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 04:13 PM

I would have say, Dan, that you were outside the body with good visio and audiuo perception, which is a rare and exciting thing, for most folks.

A